View Full Version : But why not?

June 12th, 2012, 07:31 PM
Hi Guys,

I have been using ubuntu now for a while, and tend to use it slightly a bit less than my WinBased pc... I would convert 100% over if there but a change of heart within program developers.

Most of these questions have been asked on the developers websites and most have not been answered. And so I ask, but why not?

Why not create linux based versions of their releases?

Most Graphic and web designers like myself linger on Adobe products to do the job. A lot I know use Ubuntu from time to time, just coz there is no support from Adobe side to cater for linux.

I use ubuntu to setup my web test environments and it is way more stable than the win based.

Apple made win support, win made apple support, linux makes its own support just coz there is no support from the others...

Why not itunes on ubuntu? Why not Adobe on ubuntu? Why not Blizzard on ubuntu?

I bet if this wasnt the case more people would be using ubuntu or other linux flavors instead of win or ios. :guitar:

June 12th, 2012, 07:39 PM
You can use Wine to run a large number of Windows applications, albeit with a varying degree of success.

As for "Why not itunes on ubuntu? Why not Adobe on ubuntu? Why not Blizzard on ubuntu?"

I suggest that you ask Apple, Adobe and Blizard repectively, not a bunch of end-users on a forum.

Personally, I use MPD and GIMP in place of iTunes (ew) and Photoshop, and games that run on Linux instead of games that are designed to work on Windows (I have Windows installed for those).

June 12th, 2012, 07:47 PM
Moved to recurring discussions.

June 12th, 2012, 08:48 PM

Just my two cents here.

Because, you are missing the ENTIRE POINT.

Windows 3.1 - windows 8. SAME CORE SYSTEM. Nothing really changes... Sure slight changes. But there is no inner workings change from one windows to the other, it remains VERY CLOSELY related in code. As with OSx.

HOWEVER, and this is the pitfall. Linux. Google linux:

If you do a little research about all the dirrent flavours, you will start to see it is a HUGE problem creating anything cross-linux compatible. Thus, you get sourcecode, so each end user compiles it for his/her own environment. DO you really think adobe will be releasing their CS6 master collection's sourcecode? Just like that? Just so you can compile it for you computer with your specs. Its the exact same reason why virii for *nix environments is almost non existant.

Now. Choosing only ONE flavour of linux, say ubuntu. Do you think that would be fair? Then you are reasoning exactly like they are now. I will ask, but why not redhat? Why ubuntu (or debian). Just like now, why windows and mac and not linux.

The simple answer is. Do some research first and realize what a HUGE task it will be to compile the software for even only the top 10 linux distro's.

That is probly linux's downfall in the commercial market. To many choices, to many custom version, to many variations. I mean for only you get: Ubuntu - Kubuntu - Xubuntu - Lubuntu. Different graphical environments. Same-ish code under the hood. True. But now you start adding sooo many dependancies when you code something for ubuntu for example. For all the other versions not running gnome, you need gnome binaries and such installed to run gnome apps. Doesn't it just get to you when you want to install something on windows and "Sorry you need this or that installed to run this software" examples that pop to mind is the .net packes. Direct X. etc. This issue will be even bigger on linux.

Now imagen trying to let a newbie install something this, complicated? You would get the most ridiculous issues and stuff people wont understand. Rightfully so, because of all the customization abilities of linux, it is very difficult to do more than "just use it". Even installing applications from the software centre is more complicated than it is to install something on windows.

Im not flaming the question or anything. Just merely pointing out the facts people seem to want to ignore or sugar coat.

The boiled down answer is: its just not worth the effort. Even if linux was as dominant as windows is at the moment. The amount of platforms that needs to be supported, tested, debugged, supported (since it is propriety) makes it just not worth it.

Chew on all that for a bit, do some research and then think about your question again. I'm sure you will start to understand the complexity sooner or later.


June 12th, 2012, 09:12 PM
Linux' "downfall in the commercial market" is largely due to the fact that it is, by and large, not a commercial product.

June 13th, 2012, 12:56 PM
Linux can be a difficult platform to develop for because it's so fragmented, and there's limited payback because of the small user base. So the bottom line is that many companies consider there to be no business case for a Linux version (ie: too much work for too little payback).

June 13th, 2012, 08:00 PM

I don't know about that.

I think the problem is that companies already have so much invested in their systems and processes that they have that changing to anything else, no matter how wondrous and magical, would be too expensive.

As a former executive (I exchanged all that pressure for a more fulfilling personal life!), I can tell you that unless the snake oil really did bring eternal youth I'd have had a hard time justifying a major change.

June 14th, 2012, 04:51 PM
Microsoft has always made life easy for Windows developers - great programming tools, backwards compatibility, etc... Programming for Windows makes money, and has the least amount of headaches. Linux on the other hand is fragmented, with a small user base, many of whom aren't in the market for proprietary software, and those who are simply run Windows in a VM...